[borrego]

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
It's a well known fact that recording/mastering studios don't really give a damn about all the audiophool cable/DAC stuff, and I can only confirm it. Maybe that's the reason why the MFSL remasterings are so successful

What you said it correct. But the recording/mastering professional MUST care what the mainstream perception of "good recordings" are. The audience would not come back and tell you " This recording sounds bad on my R2R / Delta-sigma" DAC. They will just come back and tell you "This recording sound bad". Then it is the recording/mastering people to listen the recording themselves using the then mainstream playback equipments (multi-bit CD players in the 80/90s, SACD/DVD players / IPods in 2000s), and adjust their mastering accordingly.
 
I also believe the mainstream "taste" of music change offer time as well. I was a vocal singer for my church band in the early 2000s. And I remember once I was told not to sing so "thick" or "rounded" (I don't know the correct words to put here, but you got what I meant), because it sounded "old fashion"...

 

[leeperry]

 

 
the recording/mastering professional MUST [..] adjust their mastering accordingly.

Again, it might be true for the audiophile stuff like MFSL, but all the usual stuff is mastered in ProTools or Sonic Solutions, EQ'ed/compressed and so on...multi-band compression is required to make a recording more beefy and less dull. Then it's dithered to 16/44.1, checked on several monitors such as high end Genelec's...put on a premastering CD and sent to the customer. After he's agreed, it's double-checked for BLER and turned into a glassmaster. That's what happens IRL, and noone calls you saying "hey, it doesn't sound good on my ___ DAC

" They simply ask for more/less compression, different EQ, hide stuff, etc etc.
 
I realize that we all have different tastes and different expectactions, but I really don't buy the "<00's=R2R >00's=D_S"...this PDF explains what a mastering engineer has to do: http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/katz_1999_secret_mastering.pdf
 
If you find anything about some DAC technologies sounding better combined w/ some dithering algorithms, I'm all ears. A DAC is meant to extract as much as possible from the incoming signal, and dithering is meant to increase its perceived resolution.
 
Maybe someone should ask on gearslutz.com, maybe I will.

 

[vrln]

Quote:

 

Again, it might be true for the audiophile stuff like MFSL, but all the usual stuff is mastered in ProTools or Sonic Solutions, EQ'ed/compressed and so on...multi-band compression is required to make a recording more beefy and less dull. Then it's dithered to 16/44.1, checked on several monitors such as high end Genelec's...put on a premastering CD and sent to the customer. After he's agreed, it's double-checked for BLER and turned into a glassmaster. That's what happens IRL,

Good point, the whole 90-00 R2R, 00+ DS is probably not that simple. It was more of an educated guess... Slightly off topic: personally I don´t know much about pro mastering, but I´ve heard a fair deal of Genelec speakers since it´s one of the most famous finnish audio companies. They are sold everywhere here, actually I own two 8030´s. The sound signature is pretty hardcore: extremely detailed, transparent and analytical. Nothing warm in the sound, many claim they are bright, but that´s probably just because they aren´t used to the studio sound. Personally I find them awesome for electronic music and TV/Movies/Gaming, but vocals music for example sounds quite sterile.
 
From my NuForce Icon HDP and Emu0404 they sound good, but one can´t listen to them for a long time. But that goes with the "made for studio work" sound I think. Genelec´s are from a different world than hifi speakers, very different. Personally I like both, but it depends on what I´ll be listening to. I´ll be able to hook them up to my Audio-gd Phoenix soon, so it´s interesting to see how they change.

 

[leeperry]

Well yeah, here's a good article about the ubiquitous NS10 monitors: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep08/articles/yamahans10.htm
 
They have the dullest/ugliest mids you could think of, and if you music sounds good on them...it'll sound amazing anywhere else. That's the kind of equipment used to make/master music, as it lets you see through everything.
 
I guess the OP boils down to an upset and unsecure manufacturer that shouldn't make this kind of statement publically, and everyone's entitled to have his own preferences...but "night and day" is all relative

 

[middachten]

Quote:

Genelec´s are from a different world than hifi speakers, very different. Personally I like both, but it depends on what I´ll be listening to. I´ll be able to hook them up to my Audio-gd Phoenix soon, so it´s interesting to see how they change.

 
Interested to read how this works out. I've quite some experience with the 8040 and the ADAM S2.5 studio monitors compared to my EPOS M22i loudspeakers. I'm searching for a new DAC/Preamp. I hope you will post a review of this setup soon!

 

 

[middachten]

Quote:

I realize that we all have different tastes and different expectactions, but I really don't buy the "<00's=R2R >00's=D_S"...this PDF explains what a mastering engineer has to do: http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/katz_1999_secret_mastering.pdf

 
I think Mr. Katz is one of the most famous exception to your initial statement in this post. When you read "Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science" he seems more of a true audiophile than anything else! All processing reduced to the bare minimum, and with some of the best equipment available.

 

[leeperry]

 

 
I think Mr. Katz is one of the most famous exception to your initial statement in this post. When you read "Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science" he seems more of a true audiophile than anything else! All processing reduced to the bare minimum, and with some of the best equipment available.

 
Well, it depends on where you go, but mastering requires transparent gear and a lot of attention. Hearsay is what makes customers come back, they come see you to get a tight/clear and balanced recording...but this is rather OT at this point

 
Still, everything tends to be overblown based on non-scientific facts in the audiophile world, and that doesn't help anybody IMHO.

 

[middachten]

Quote:

Still, everything tends to be overblown based on non-scientific facts in the audiophile world, and that doesn't help anybody IMHO.

 
Having experience in consumer equipment design, sound recording and live sound reinforcement, I couldn't agree more with you on this.
 
Its quite astonishing to see how much dynamic processing, Eq-ing and low-fi recording goes into the average pop song..... And then to see what conclusions about reproduction equipment are drawn based on listening to some of these recordings!

 

 

[middachten]

One thing that keeps bugging me is the statement that was made about one 'type'  of DA conversion process would be more suited to a particular type of AD conversion process and vice versa. 
 
And why would a delta/sigma DAC like the Sabre be more suited to modern recordings?

 

[ciphercomplete]

I've got no clue about this recording stuff but from my own ears my W4S sigma delta DAC outperforms my Monarchy NM24 DAC which is R2R about 60-70% of the time with newer recordings.  Maybe artists are currently asking their mastering engineers for a type of sound that sigma delta dacs do well.  If thats the case then we are not talking about whether or not something sounds "modern" but we are talking about current mainstream recording and mastering preferences. 

 

[Parafeed]

The whole concept of using a certain design or topology of DAC depending on when the music was recorded or mastered....... it's insane!
 
(I could semi-understand an argument based on type or genre of music. ie. solo girl with guitar/piano sounds great on R2R NOS, but "brickwalled" metal doesn't. The idea that a decade of music sounds best on R2R because it was recorded/mixed/mastered on R2R - it's crazy!)

 

[Currawong]

Quote:

I'm just a few months back in the audio scene after being very busy with family, career and other hobbies

.
During the eighties and nineties I've worked in design, manufacturing and sales of high-end audio equipment. Most early CD players sounded outright awful. Harsh, flat soundstage and lifeless dynamics. Somewhere in the late eighties/early nineties they started to become acceptable. The CD players I liked most at that time used either the TDA1541(A, S1, S2) or the PCM64. And later the Ultra Analog D20400. All R-2R dacs. Then a new type of converter was introduced they called it Bitstream, MASH, delta/sigma. They all used a form of delta/sigma modulator to reconstruct the original waveform.
 
The technical difference is that a R-2R dac immediately switches between amplitude levels that represent the signal shape. A delta-sigma modulator produces a string of pulses with a certain density that 'add up'  to the amplitude level that represents the signal shape. The reason for this development was the fact that its extremely difficult to produce a R-2R DAC with a true 16bit or higher resolution. This requires ultra precise calibration of The 'R' along the R-2R network. A delta/sigma modulator uses just one calibrated switch (or a few, like the Sabre does).
 
Thats the technical difference. What does this mean soundwise?
The best example for me has always been the development of the ARCAM products. One of my favorite players was the Delta 70.2, which used the TDA1541. It was succeeded by the 70.3 that used the SAA7350, the first bitstream DAC made by Philips (who also produced the TDA 1541). The 70.2 was really shining when it came to dynamics, impact and tonal balance. When the 70.3 came it showed better detail, refinement and depth of soundstage. But it was missing the impact and dynamics. For many years this difference has remained the same. But halfway the nineties chip designers and designers of audio equipment made some big advancements in their delta/sigma based designs. One of the most important ones was the fact that they realized that these dacs are much more sensitive to jitter and the quality of the output buffer/filter.
 
I doubt if I will ever find a DAC that can compete with the amazing Stax X1t which used the D20400. (I worked at the Dutch distributor of Stax at the time this DAC was introduced. I still remember every listening session we had with our demo unit!). But there are plenty CD players out there that will outperform a Marantz CD12/DA12 in terms of soundstage, low level detail and HF smoothness. And that will perform at leas on par when it comes to dynamics and impact.
 
A well implemented delta/sigma dac will outperform a mediocre R-2R design. How the best R-2R design will perform agains the same level of R-2R dac will be known soon...... As I assume that a large part of the head-fi Dedicated Source Components topics will be centering around the currently released Sabre based DACs from Audio-GD

This is quite interesting, having missed all this stuff.  When I started getting into hi-fi (though not a lot because I couldn't afford much) there wasn't all this technical understanding that we have here, though most of our personal knowledge is dangerously incomplete.  However, regarding transports, I feel we've come to much the same conclusions about transports as you mention here.  I'm not completely convinced, from recent experience, that R2R is the ONLY way to go.  I am pretty fussy about instruments sounding natural and not "digital", but with the more I learn about digital electronics, the more focus ends up on the transport and input stage (not ignoring the rest, but I already have a DAC with (I hope) about as good an output stage and power supply as you can get).

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

The whole concept of using a certain design or topology of DAC depending on when the music was recorded or mastered....... it's insane!
 
(I could semi-understand an argument based on type or genre of music. ie. solo girl with guitar/piano sounds great on R2R NOS, but "brickwalled" metal doesn't. The idea that a decade of music sounds best on R2R because it was recorded/mixed/mastered on R2R - it's crazy!)

x2.  It's absolutely ludicrous.

 

[regal]

Quote:

x2.  It's absolutely ludicrous
 

 It would be like saying the beatles records made with an all tube recording process should only be listen to on tube amps.
 
 
To the original topic,  I think there is a lot of armchair quarter backing with people putting down MSB,  the W4S Sabre didn't impress me at all.  And it looks like no one at this DAC shootout were impressed either:
http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/showthread.php/26992-DAC-Shootout 
 
Unless I'm wrong the W4S is the best implementation of the sabre available.   These impressions are not good.     I agree that the MSB marketing page was a little rediculous (they should be working on their analog stage instead of worrying about the Sabre chip.)  Probably a Sabre with a great anaolg stage and power supplies would beat the MSB,  but I see it has limitations.  A few S-D chips allow you to bypass the internal digital filter and use a custom algorithm on a AD Shark or Blackfin, or an FPGA like the Audio-gd DSP-1.   I don't think the Sabre has this option?   So its stuck with an older algorithm.

 

[middachten]

Thanks for bringing this topic back on track again.
 
To be frank, I havn't heard neither a Sabre implementation nor an MSB DAC yet. So I can't comment on these specific issues. I was merely responding to the general R-2R v.s. Delta/Sigma debate.